Gleason Grades 3+3 vs. 3+4 And The De... - Prostate Cancer N...

Prostate Cancer Network

4,936 members3,072 posts

Gleason Grades 3+3 vs. 3+4 And The Decision To Use Active Surveillance As A Primary Treatment

JoelT profile image
0 Replies

The presence of Gleason 3 + 4 at biopsy, when compared to 3 + 3, increases the risk of adverse pathology being present at radical prostatectomy. When considering active surveillance (AS) as a primary treatment, a stricter protocol such as PRIAS, limiting PSA density and number of positive cores to ≤2, appears to decrease the risk of adverse pathology. No differences in biochemical cancer recurrence (BCR aka PSA only recurrence) were seen between biopsy 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 disease, regardless of AS when these additional factors are considered.

BJU international. 2016 Apr [Epub]

Lih-Ming Wong, Vincent Tang, Justin Peters, Anthony Costello, Niall Corcoran

tinyurl.com/h8sahmn

Joel

Written by
JoelT profile image
JoelT
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Read more about...

You may also like...

Anyone Choose Active Surveillance FOR PC with Gleason 7 (4-3)

monitoring do you do? (i.e ..psa every 3 months, PSMA Pet (once a year ,) Biopsy- (once a year) ,...

Gleason score change from 3+4 to 3+3 with perineural invasion noted under Active Surveillance

had an MRI and PSA about 11 months into Active Surveillance. The MRI showed no change & PSA has...

Thinking of Active Surveillance with 3+4

the original report from my first Dr. My last PSA was 5.4 and I'm a T1c I'm 55, excellent shape...

Trying to decide Active Surveillance vs other options

active surveillance vs radiation. I'm 57 years old and via normal checkups had an elevated PSA...

Gleason 6, 1 Yr AS, now Gleason 3+4

noticed PSA doubled to 2.4, last yr 3.5 so had MRI and urine exosome test, \\"liquid biopsy\\"....